State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S. Coromandal International ... vs Goskula Ravinder, Karimnagar on 24 December, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.1018 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.130 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR. Between: 1. M/s. Coromandal International Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, MGC Sulthanabad Post and Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2. M/s.Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Sy.No.69, Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..Appellants/ Opp.parties. A N D Goskula Ravinder S/o.Illaiah, aged 33 years, Resident of Kadambapur village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimangar. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant M/s D.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondent - Mr.G.Ravinder, Party in person QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE I/c.President. AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTHY DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (As per Sri T.Ashok Kumar, Honble Member) ***
01. This is an appeal preferred by the Ops. Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.130/2012 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder:
02. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a farmer cultivating Ac.300 of land in Sy No.215 of Kadambapur village by taking the land from original pattedars, on lease basis. The opposite parties propagated that if their seeds are planted, farmers will get more yield and therefore to raise cotton crop, he purchased one cotton seed bag i.e. NUZIVEEDU SUPERMAN on 02-7-2011 another i.e. NUZIVEEDU MALLIKA on 04-7-2011 from opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.930/- for each bag and that he also purchased cotton seed i.e. NUZIVEEDU MALLIKA AND NUZIVEEDU MANJET through his friend G. Rami Reddy worth Rs.2,790/- on 02-7-2011 and sowed the seeds in his land of Ac.3.00 and followed normal practices for growing crop by applying fertilizers and pesticides and that he expected good crop and the period of crop is between 90-120 days but there was no expected growth in the crop and number of cotton bolls grown per plant were not satisfactory due to some defect in the seed and there was no proper growth. Hence he picked up some plants and shown the same to opposite party No.1 who inspected the cotton field and took photographs and assured that the matter will be settled but there was no response. The complainant on 28-10-2011 approached the Assistant Director of Agriculture Peddapalli complaining about the defects and when there was no action, the complainant reported the matter to District Collector, Karimnagar on 14-11-2011 on which a team from Agriculture Department inspected the cotton crop on 28-11-2011 and submitted report. The report given by the said team revealed that there was poor growth in the crop and number of bolls per plant is less and their weight is also less than a normal ball and thereby he could not get the required yield because of inferior quality seeds sold by the opposite parties, the complainant could not get normal yield and the farmers who planted similar cotton seeds got 17-20 quintals per acre but he got only 1 quintal in his Ac.3.00 and sustained loss of Rs.2.00 lakhs on the crop. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.
03. Opposite parties resisted the complaint. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant purchased cotton seeds from its shop on 02-7-2011 and 04-7-2011 but denied that he purchased 3 more bags through his friend, G. Rami Reddy.
The date when the cotton seed was sown by the complainant was not mentioned and cotton seed supplied by them is of high standard and sold the same product to number of farmers through various shops and there no complaints. The complainant did not show any plants to OP. 1 as alleged , he did not visit the field and take photographs and assure to settle the matter and that the same is invented. Opposite parties denied that the claim of the complainant that when there was no growth in the cotton , he picked some plants and showed them to opposite party No.1 and that opposite party no.1 inspected the field and took photographs. The opposite parties denied the inspection of cotton seed by the team of Agriculture Department and contends that no notice was served on them before making inspection. There was no defect in the seeds supplied by OP.1 and the complainant ought to have soil tested and also sent the seeds for testing and no sample was taken from the shop of opposite party No.1 for sending it to a Analyst and the allegation of the complainant that he would have got 17-20 quintals per acre is false and that there is no deficiency in service and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
04. Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month and in default the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt.
05. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the seeds produced and supplied by them are of high standard and that even though sold to number of persons no complaints were received and that Agricultural officers visit is without notice to them and that in the report of Agricultural officer also there is no mention that seeds were defective and that according to admission of the complainant neighbouring farmers had sown same seeds and got good yield and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable either in law or on facts and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently dismiss the complaint.
06. Point for consideration is whether order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts ?
07. The case of the complainant is that himself and one Rami Reddy purchased Nooziveedu Superman and Mallika Cotton seeds from the shop of Op.1 produced by second opposite party vide Ex. A1 to A3 receipts and that he sowed the same in land measuring AC. 3.00 cents in survey no. 215 of Kadambhapur village which was taken on lease from one Parlella Bapu and parlella chandraiah and that by adopting the normal practise for growing the crop and applying fertilizers and pesticides he raised the said crop but on account of defect in the seeds there was no proper growth of the crop and that in the said context he approached the first opposite party by picking up some of the plants from the field and had shown the same to him and that even though OP.1 inspected the cotton field, took photographs of the plants and assured that the matter will be settled but there was no response from him and therefore he approached concerned Agricultural Director, District Collector and a team of Agricultural department inspected the cotton crop on 28.11.2008 and submitted a report to the effect that there was poor growth in the crop and number of balls per plant were less so also the weight and in the said context he sustained loss because he expected yield would be 17 to 20 quintals per acre but he got only 1 quintals of cotton in entire Ac.3.00 Acres of land and thus he sustained loss of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of defective cotton seeds. Copy of Credit eligibility card ( Ex. A-9) which finds place in the record discloses that the complainant has taken survey no. 215 of Kadambhapur for cultivation from Parlella Bapu and Parlella Chandraiah. Complaint copy dated 28.10.2011 addressed to ADA ( Ex. A-4) and another representation dt. 14.11.2011 addressed to District Collector, Karimnagar ( Ex. A-5) also reveal that the said land was taken on lease by the complainant. It is true that Ex. A2 name of one G. Rami Reddy finds place as purchaser of Nooziveedu Mallik BT 2 450g Nooziveedhu Manzeeth BT 2 cotton seeds and in other two receipts Ex. A1 and 3 name of the complainant is shown that he purchased Nooziveedu superman BG2 and Noziveedu Mallika BT2. Possibility of the said G. Rami Reddy purchasing cotton seeds for the complainant cannot be ruled out as he happens to be the friend of the complainant. It is the contention of the Ops that cotton seeds supplied by them is high standard and sold the same to number of farmers through various shops but there are no complainants from any person and thus opposed the claim of the complainant. Being an agriculturist, the complainant is not expected to preserve the sample seeds anticipating that in the event of not growing the crop properly he has to file a consumer complaint The Ops being dealer and manufacturer of cotton seeds are expected to keep the samples of the cotton seeds and on coming to know about the complaint it was their duty to get the samples tested in the competent laboratory and file report to the effect that there was no defect in the seeds but they did not do so and in the said circumstances adverse inference need tp drawn against the Ops. It appears that in connection with his representations in Ex. A-4 made to ADA and Ex. A-5 submitted to the District Collector the concerned Agricultural officer visited the field of the complainant and Ex. A-7 is his report and Ex. A-6 are copies of photographs of the cotton crop taken at the time of inspection by concerned Agricultural officer. The said report reveals that the complainant raised BT cotton in three acres of land and that the farmer adopted normal package of practices for growing the crop, irrigated the crop for five times, used different insecticides for management of sucking pests but the growth of the crop was poor and that total number of balls for plants on an average was 16 and average weight of the ball only 1 to 2 gms it was also mentioned in the said report that in the adjacent fields BT cotton Hybrid Mallik was cultivated, the growth of the crop was good with an average number of 40 balls per plant and weight of the each ball was about 3 gms and that it appears from the above observation that the actual average yield that can be obtained may be very less i.e. about 1 to 2 quintals per acre. The said Agricultural Officer had no reason to submit a false report favouring the complaint. . It is true that Ops were not informed about the visit of the Agricultural officer and others on 28.11.2011. But the same is no ground to discord the said report as the public servant in discharge of his duties went there and inspected the filed. Newspaper clippings in Ex. A8 also support the case of the complainant that there was loss of crop to him on account of defect in the seeds. In such circumstance, we are also satisfied to come to a conclusion that the complainant has to adequately compensated.
08. There is no dependable evidence on record from the side of the Ops to say that the neighbouring farmers of the complainant had sown the same seeds that were sold by OP. 1 or produced by OP. 2 and therefore their contention that seeds supplied by Ops did not suffer from any defect could not be appreciated. It is more so, when there is categorical assertion by the concerned Agricultural officer that the complainant had adopted normal package of practices for growth of the crop, irrigated the crop for five times, used the different insecticides for management of sucking the pests. Even though it is not specifically mentioned in Ex. A7 report that seeds were defective, the sum and substance of the said report is the same. According to the complainant, the expected average yield per acre was 17 to 20 quintals but he did not file any dependable material in the said context or opinion of so also third party affidavits. It is his contention that he got only 1.60 quintals of cotton in entire three acres of land but he did not submit any bills or other reliable evidence in the said context. On the other hand, in Ex. A-7 Field Visit Report of Mandal Agricultural officer reveals that the average yield that can be obtained may be about 1 to 2 quintals per acre. In the circumstances of the case, it is taken as 2 quintals per acre which is beneficial to the Ops and thus the yield that the complainant got is arrived at 6 quintals from three acres of land. The complainant calculated the loss at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per quintal for 20 quintals and arrived the loss at Rs.60,000/-.
Even if the same rate is accepted, Rs.18,000/- has to be deducted from the said amount and thus the complainant is entitled for Rs.42,000/- only. Ops did not impeach the credit of the evidence of the complainant by any convincing means nor filed any documents nor scientific experts reports in their favour to dismiss the complaint. In the circumstances described supra, the order in FA 294/2008 dt. 15.02.2011 of this Commission is not helpful for the Ops. Therefore, the impugned order has to be modified and thus point is answered accordingly.
09. In the result, the appeal is disposed of modifying the order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, in default, to pay the awarded amount with interest at the rate of 9% pa from the date of receipt of the order till realization.
Incharge President Member Dated : 24.12.2013.